Moose, I refer you to my earlier messages 11 and 65 wherein I described my earlier argument with Terry on the Sakurai Anomoly and commented that you appear to have reached a similar endpoint. Terry's message #82 in More Rapid Canyon Carving I think proves my point. If I were so minded I think I could convincingly claim that I am clairvoyant (or I got a message from god).
Obviously the only person who can perceive the true meaning of the research is Terry by interpreting what someone reported on the research. The original researcher is obviously not in a position to know, just ask Terry.
Looks like I was wrong. In message 83 Terry has taken the tack that researchers are finding conflicting ages, but turning a blind eye to the contradictions. Here's the link to the thread again.
Incredible that he actually states he prefers the University of Arizona's summary of the paper rather than the paper itself, or even the author himself. Terry is a blast to debate with because you never know what wonderful entertainment he's going to provide as he figures out how to once again pull the wool over his own eyes.
If you ask me, bob is loosing his grip on reality. How old is bob, anyway? Is he suffering from some kind of dementia?
Your "Bob" seems to be a less coherent version of my "Terry". Of course, your "Helium" topic is more technically complicated than my "Grand Canyon" topic. Still, whatever Terry's shortcomings are, he does seem to be able to write clear, if misguided statements.
By the way, the remarkable event of Terry conceding to the oppositions view seems to have happened at the "More than Blood" topic at the Talk Origins board (messages 8&9).
Also, I have a little topic organization debate going with Terry. EdenNod had started a "Shroud of Turan" (sp?) topic a while back. It was still available on page 1 of the Talk Origins board list of most recent active topics. Anyhow, Terry came up with some "new" shroud information, and started a new topic for it. He is insistent that breaking it into two topics is a good thing!
quote:Anyhow, Terry came up with some "new" shroud information, and started a new topic for it. He is insistent that breaking it into two topics is a good thing!
I decided to look at some comparative statistics, Talk Origins board vs. , for the 100 most recent active topics lists.
Talk Origins: 16 of 100 topics went 20 messages or greater. 4 of 100 topics went 50 messages or greater. The greatest number of topic messages was 94, followed by the 83 of my "Grand Canyon" battle with Terry.
: 50 of 100 topics went 20 messages or greater, including all of the most recent 5. 16 of 100 topics went 100 messages or greater. 4 of 100 topics went 200 messages or greater. 2 of 100 topics went 300 messages or greater. 1 of 100 topics went 400 messages or greater (can you guess which one?)
Number 100 on the Talk Origins list was last posted to on 7/15/02; Number 100 here at was last posted to on 10/5/02.
This illustrates what I see as one of the problems at the Talk Origins board - way too many micro-topics. Also, it shows how stifled the debate is there.
I suspect that most of the "most messages" topics at the Talk Origins board, are when Terry and Salty clash on something.
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-21-2002]
quote:Originally posted by Quetzal: As of this post, 501.
Actually I was originally interested because I wondered if the relative numbers of registered members might have influenced the comparison of numbers of posts in specific threads between EvC and Terry's site...but now I find it interesting that there are so many registered members since it hardly seems like 500 people are posting here regularly...so in answer to nos482...most must be lurkers
I figured that's what you were after. However, I'd say that the vast majority of the people registered here are most likely either dormant (in that they post very infrequently), or "extinct" in the population (in that they posted once or twice and never returned). How many check in every so often just to read, I don't know. Percy may have some kind of "use monitor".
I'll add "use monitor" to the Future Features list.
About site participation, as you correctly imply, while I have no figures, it does seem that only a small percentage of the 501 members are active at any given time, and I think "extinct" is a good term for those who are registered but never visit any more, probably a sizeable number. I have debated whether to add a "deregister" link, and whether I should send an email to all members and delete those with non-existent email addresses, after checking if they've posted anything recently. I could also delete those whose registration is older than a couple months but have never posted. If you visit the member list you'll see many have never posted.
Ideas or comments? How do people feel about the actual registration being a more accurate reflection of those actively participating?
quote:Hale, I don't know whether you are actually confused between the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution, or are blurring the two on purpose. Your objections to the papers on one of the many scientists on the ICR list indicates one of the two, however. NO creationist doubts the fact of evolution, it is absolutely established. What the creationist does not accept is the theory of evolution as a source of the diversity of all life on this planet from an original single celled form. Evolution, as in adaptation, is absolutely established, and EVERY biological scientist knows that. Evolution, as the mechanism which brought all forms of life extant from an original form is a theory, and many biological scientists doubt that. The blurring of these two very distinct definitions is something I have seen done repeatedly, and the objections to such methods grew to the point that even the usenet group talk.origins finally admitted to a sharp distinction between the two.
It is helpful to refer to the two in distinct terms, such as macro-evolution and micro-evolution to avoid giving the wrong impression.
One other thing - how do you figure a DVM or an MD is not qualified as a biological scientist?
I added the bolds.
Apparently Terry is making "Fact of Evolution"="Microevolution", and the "Theory of Evolution"="Macroevolution".
While I do think the following reasoning is flawed, I would be inclined to have the "macroevolution" record of the fossil record being the single strongest evidence of the "fact of evolution".
Or something like that.
A technical note, added by edit:
While I was preparing the above message, I accidently closed the window. Instead, however, of having to start over, I was able to recover the page from my temporary internet files folder. This method may be useful to others, when a (long?) message they are preparing, is somehow lost before it was posted.
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-21-2002]
Recent observations from Terry's Talk Origins board
SLPx has become active there, which, of course, is causing all kinds of of turmoil.
I kind of find myself being in the clumsy position of defending Scott's behavior.
Apparently the only thing keeping Scott from getting banned there, is the wishes of Salty. Salty wishes that Scott remains, as being a representative of Darwinistic thought (or something like that).
Essentially we may have the situation, of a clash between a cranky anti-Darwinist evolutionist (Salty), and a cranky pro-Darwinist evolutionist (Scott).
A side comment, comparing the moderations methodology at Terry's Talk Origins, to that of EvCforum.net.
Terry seems to feel a need to protect creationists from the harsh realities of the evolutionists point of view.
Here at the EvCforum, such protection is less, or not at all. So the creationist side (fairly or otherwise) gets exposed to a greater dose of scientific reality (and I must again say, "or something like that").
------------------ Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. My big page of Creation/Evolution Links